16 Jan 06
Originally posted by CliffLandinI am thankful Israel had the guts to eliminate Osirak in 1983.
Wow, that was very uninformed. So when did membership to this club close? Was that before or after N. Korea got them? Or was it when Pakistan got theres? What are you thanking god for Israel for? For creating instability in the most volatile region in the world. You should be thanking GW Bush and his cronies for that. Well Israel too, but I don't think creating instability in any part of the world is anything to thank anyone for.
16 Jan 06
Originally posted by CliffLandinWhether or not Israel is the offending party in the mid-east instability is a matter of opinion not fact. So you can call my opinion uninformed and I can call yours uninformed .. the argument goes no where.
Wow, that was very uninformed. So when did membership to this club close? Was that before or after N. Korea got them? Or was it when Pakistan got theres? What are you thanking god for Israel for? For creating instability in the most volatile region in the world. You should be thanking GW Bush and his cronies for that. Well Israel too, but I don't think creating instability in any part of the world is anything to thank anyone for.
16 Jan 06
4 edits
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder:
Is this your "crystal clear" statement?
Ivanhoe: What ever happened to the Left and their opposition against any form of nuclear energy ?
The present issue is whether the "international community" should continue to bully and threaten a country for developing a uranium enrichment program like many other countries have and which are allo th you it's always something when it concerns Muslim countries that aren't pro-Western.
Is this your "crystal clear" statement?
Ivanhoe: What ever happened to the Left and their opposition against any form of nuclear energy ?
No marauder, that is a cristal clear question.
You continue to confuse the issue.
marauder: "The issue is whether not "allowing" them to do so if they insist on it means war. You have my answer and I have your's, but with you it's always something when it concerns Muslim countries that aren't pro-Western"
You fail to differentiate between Muslim and extreme Islamist countries. I guess the "subtlety" of this distinction doesn't fit it in with your personal "war" against prejudice and bigotry.
The enriching of uranium becomes a hot and disputed issue if the country involved is a staunch supporter of international terrorism. Iran could provide terrorist groups with the materials to construct so called "dirty" bombs, spreading death, disease and despair in the countries which Iran regards as its enemies ... and these countries are not just western countries, marauder.
I can allready hear you raising your voice and screaming your heart out in criticising the US government in case it fails to prevent such an attack .... In case Iran will be able to realise such a scenario and indeed will contaminate whole US cities with nuclear material through means of a "dirty" bomb, please remember then that you had the position way back in 2006 that Iran was entitled under the NPT to enrich uranium according your legalistic way of reasoning and as a result of this didn't support those countries, including the EU3, Russia, Japan and China, backed by the International Community, that were trying to prevent this scenario from happening by diplomatic means way back in 2006.
16 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeSo now it's not only nuclear weapons that Iran must not be "allowed" to have, but uranium as well (uranium need not be enriched to be used in a "dirty bomb"😉.. And that's because Iran supports the Palestinian resistance against Israeli occupation, in your mind, "terrorism". This, of course, is the same song and dance used to justify the war against Iraq in 2002. Same old, same old, Ivanhoe; can't you guys come up with anything original?
[b/]marauder:
Is this your "crystal clear" statement?
Ivanhoe: What ever happened to the Left and their opposition against any form of nuclear energy ?
No marauder, that is a cristal clear question.
You continue to confuse the issue.
marauder: "The issue is whether not "allowing" them to do so if they insist on it means w o prevent this scenario from happening by diplomatic means way back in 2006.
16 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYou just keep speculating, now don't you ? You simply keep producing these strawmen. You simply mould my position into something that can be attacked very easily ..... yup, that's a strawman all right.
So now it's not only nuclear weapons that Iran must not be "allowed" to have, but uranium as well (uranium need not be enriched to be used in a "dirty bomb"😉.. And that's because Iran supports the Palestinian resistance against Israeli occupation, in your mind, "terrorism". This, of course, is the same song and dance used to justify the war against Iraq in 2002. Same old, same old, Ivanhoe; can't you guys come up with anything original?
Marauder, how do you think the world community is handling the Iran issue right now ?
16 Jan 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou can parrot the word "strawman" all you want, but the logical implications of your positions are what I'm getting at. I haven't mis-stated any of your positions; they're all here for everybody to see. You try to hide them, but they always come through.
You just keep speculating, now don't you ? You simply keep producing these strawmen. You simply mould my position into something that can be attacked very easily ..... yup, that's a strawman all right.
Marauder, how do you think the world community is handling the Iran issue right now ?
16 Jan 06
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderYou just keep using your cristal ball and just keep misrepresenting my positions, instead of carefully reading my posts.
You can parrot the word "strawman" all you want, but the logical implications of your positions are what I'm getting at. I haven't mis-stated any of your positions; they're all here for everybody to see. You try to hide them, but they always come through.
marauder: "You try to hide them, but they always come through."
You still have to admit that "Peace Now" and I agree on continuing the peace-negotiations between Israel and Palestine on the basis of the Road Map and that you do not agree on this. Even if you are clearly wrong on a certain issue you refuse to admit it. Not very gentlemanlike ..... but then again, you are not a gentleman, but simply a manipulating marauder.
They always come through .... right marauder ?
16 Jan 06
Originally posted by Rajk999Really? You are questioning whether western Christian nations creating a Jewish state in a muslem country created instability? So you are saying that since the creation of Israel the region has been more stable. Please elaborate. Tell us how many nations resorted to suicide bombers before '48. I feel that I have a pretty strong arguement, whether or not you say it goes nowhere. It goes nowhere because you refuse to look at facts.
Whether or not Israel is the offending party in the mid-east instability is a matter of opinion not fact. So you can call my opinion uninformed and I can call yours uninformed .. the argument goes no where.
16 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeStop lying Ivanhoe; you support rigid application of the Road Map pre-conditions like Sharon does. PeaceNow, the Palestinian Authority and I have no problem with the Road Map as a "basis" for negotiations but not as the ONLY way. Your childish insistence that somehow you "got" me is worthy of a 5 year old; as shown in the other thread, you support virtually none of PeaceNow's positions.
You just keep using your cristal ball and just keep misrepresenting my positions, instead of carefully reading my posts.
[b]marauder: "You try to hide them, but they always come through."
You still have to admit that "Peace Now" and I agree on continuing the peace-negotiations between Israel and Palestine on the basis of the Road Map and that you ...[text shortened]... man, but simply a manipulating marauder.
They always come through .... right marauder ?[/b]
EDIT: From the other thread:
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=34786&page=3
Ivanhoe: I support the "Road Map to Peace"
Not "as a basis for negotiations" like PeaceNow, but in its entirety like Sharon.
16 Jan 06
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are simply a compulsive liar. You opposed the Road Map, marauder. After I mentioned in a previous discussion that even the Palestinian Authority supported the Roadmap as a basis for negotiations you dismissed this fact by stating that the Palestinians were forced into supporting the Road Map. Why ? Because they were the weak party in all this, you stated. YOU marauder did NOT support the road map in any shape or form.
Stop lying Ivanhoe; you support rigid application of the Road Map pre-conditions like Sharon does. PeaceNow, the Palestinian Authority and I have no problem with the Road Map as a "basis" for negotiations but not as the ONLY way. Your childish insistence that somehow you "got" me is worthy of a 5 year old; as shown in the other thread, you support virtua "
Not "as a basis for negotiations" like PeaceNow, but in its entirety like Sharon.
EDIT: The proof for the latter and your reasons not to support the Roadmap are in my next post.
16 Jan 06
1 edit
😲
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=34942
marauder: "I'm already given my view of Bush's "Roadmap"; supporting it is supporting a grossly one-sided approach to peace that cannot work."
Ivanhoe: "Then why do the Palestinians themselves support it ?
marauder: "The Palestinian Authority is dealing from a position of weakness; they have accepted the "Road Map" as the best they can hope for without agreeing to all its conditions."
YOU marauder did NOT support the Roadmap. The above clearly states this because supporting the Roadmap is "supporting a grossly one-sided approach to peace that cannot work", according to you.
.... and now ... all of a sudden you support it .... you manipulative liar.
16 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeSpeaking of liars, you are playing your usual, lowlife trick of quoting out of context to deceive. You should be ashamed of yourself. Here's what I said:
😲
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=34942
[b]marauder: "I'm already given my view of Bush's "Roadmap"; supporting it is supporting a grossly one-sided approach to peace that cannot work."
Ivanhoe: "Then why do the Palestinians themselves support it ?
marauder: "The Palestinian Authority is dealing from a position o you.
.... and now ... all of a sudden you support it .... you manipulative liar.[/b]
The Palestinian view of the Road Map is that it is just that; a "Road Map" who's contents are flexible and not written in stone. Sharon's view is not to accept any deviations from it except those which are favorable to Israel. IMO, Sharon's interpretation of the "Road Map" i.e. that the Palestinian Authority must somehow crush all physical resistance ("terror" to Sharon) to Israeli occupation before Israel does anything of significance is unworkable and unreasonable and it certainly not the interpretation of Abbas and the Palestinian Authority.
Clearly there are two interpretations of the "Road Map". Sharon's and yours' is to rigidly apply the "Road Map" without deviation as a precondition to real negotiations; read the speech given by Sharon in the thread you cited. The PA's and PeaceNow's is that the "Road Map" is just that; a "basis for negotiations" not the final say.
I'll expect your immediate apology for deliberately trying to deceive people by taking my words out of context when the entire post is perfectly understandable even to someone as thick headed as you.
And please give one position of Sharon vis-a-vis the Palestinians you disagree with.
16 Jan 06
😲
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=34942
marauder: "In short, Sharon's speech is the typical grossly one-sided position you endorse."
No, marauder, you deliberately keep misrepresenting my position. You want to push me into the same corner Ariel Sharon is in. I endorse the negotiations based on the road-map. Now, that's quite a different cup of soup.
*****************************************************
As we can see you were zealously trying to construct your strawman also at that time. (12-18-2005)
On top of that, I clearly state that I endorse the negotiations "BASED ON THE ROADMAP".
17 Jan 06
2 edits
Originally posted by ivanhoeThen it should be easy for you to name ONE position of Sharon as spelled out in his Herzliya speech you disagree with. Do so. After all, you're the one who cut and pasted it in its entirety.
😲
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=34942
marauder: "In short, Sharon's speech is the typical grossly one-sided position you endorse."
No, marauder, you deliberately keep misrepresenting my position. You want to push me into the same corner Ariel Sharon is in. I endorse the negotiations based on the road-map. Now, that's qu ...[text shortened]...
On top of that, I clearly state that I endorse the negotiations "BASED ON THE ROADMAP".
17 Jan 06
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder: "I'll expect your immediate apology for deliberately trying to deceive people "
Speaking of liars, you are playing your usual, lowlife trick of quoting out of context to deceive. You should be ashamed of yourself. Here's what I said:
The Palestinian view of the Road Map is that it is just that; a "Road Map" who's contents are flexible and not written in stone. Sharon's view is not to accept any deviations from it except ...[text shortened]... give one position of Sharon vis-a-vis the Palestinians you disagree with.
The only one who is deceiving people is you.
Therefore the only one who should apologise is you.
You did NOT support the Roadmap and now you all of a sudden support it.
I have given the proof for that. You do not hesitate to lie if this serves your purposes . You are a proven liar.